Sunday, July 15, 2007

Marilyn E. Carroll’s Junk Science

PCP, or phencyclidine, is a dissociative anesthetic that was developed in the 1950s as a surgical anesthetic.

People who use PCP for long periods report memory loss, difficulties with speech and thinking, depression, and weight loss. These symptoms can persist up to a year after cessation of PCP use. Mood disorders also have been reported.

How common is PCP use? Here are figures reported by Quest Diagnostics, a commercial workplace drug-testing lab.

Rates by Drug Category(For Federally-Mandated, Safety-Sensitive Workforce, as a Percentage of All Such Tests) (More than 2.0 million tests from January to December 2006)

I mention all of this because it is germane to the animal research community’s claims that there is strong competition for federal grants, and that only important studies addressing important problems, and asking important questions get approved and funded. For instance, the National Association for Biomedical Research says

The National Institutes of Health—the single major source of federal funding for biomedical research in this country—currently can support only about one-quarter of all worthy research proposals due to limited available funding. Certainly, scarce funds are not awarded for studies which will not add significantly to biomedical research.

Looking at the numbers above, apparently, about 1% of people who are in positions with federally mandated drug testing, test positive for marijuana use; about 1/2 of 1% test positive for cocaine; about 2/10 of 1% test positive for “opiates” (essentially, the only opiate used is heroin); and 3/100 of 1% test positive for PCP.

Marilyn E. Carroll, Ph.D. is a Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Minnesota.

Carroll’s funding, FY 2006 - 2002:

2R01DA003240-23 "Vulnerability to Drug Abuse and Treatment Efficacy: Animal Models" $323,377, $290,344, $290,538, $290,775, $290,909. “Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The overall objective of this research application is to focus on major vulnerability factors in drug abuse, including avidity for nondrug rewards, impulsive behavior, sex, and ovarian hormones, and determine how groups with differing vulnerability levels respond to treatment efforts.”

3R01DA002486-26 "A PRIMATE MODEL OF DRUG ABUSE: INTERVENTION STRATEGIES" $74,749, $293,217, $293,236, $293,256, ($56,000 + $293,274)“Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The main objective of this research is to develop nonhuman primate models (rhesus monkeys) of critical aspects of addiction that will yield useful information for the prevention and treatment of drug abuse."

5K05DA015267-05 "Models for the Prevention and Treatment of Drug Abuse" $117,330, $117,330, $117,330, $117,330, $117,330. “Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The objective of this K05 application is to obtain salary support for release time from teaching and administrative duties not directly related to research. This would increase time allocated to research from 40% before the K05 to 75-90.”

You’ll notice that her grants, 2R01DA003240-23 and 3R01DA002486-26 each end with a -xx. The digits following the dash indicate the years of funding. In other words, as of FY 2006, 2R01DA003240-23 "Vulnerability to Drug Abuse and Treatment Efficacy: Animal Models" has been funded for 23 years, and 3R01DA002486-26 "A PRIMATE MODEL OF DRUG ABUSE: INTERVENTION STRATEGIES" has been funded for 26 years.

Right now, we the people, are paying her almost three quarters of a million dollars a year to write about the effects of PCP on monkeys and cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. It makes no different to the NIH or to her university that rats don’t seek cocaine or that monkeys don’t use PCP. Or, that her research has contributed nothing to helping the small number of people with a cocaine addiction or the infinitesimally minute number of people using PCP regularly.

Or, obviously, that she’s been torturing rats and monkeys for over a quarter of a century.

In supporting animal rights in a laboratory setting, you're also supporting the suffering and death of anyone with un-curable/treatable disorders. Here's a dirty little secret: any medication (chemotherapy, antidepressants, anxiolytics, antipsychotics, blood pressure stabilizers, etc.) that saves millions of lives originated with animal models that tested its efficacy/toxicity. Here's another dirty little secret: these animals that died due to these studies also saved millions of lives. If you're so supportive of animal rights I suggest you find your nearest hospital and explain to the families of patients with untreatable diseases that their loved ones are out of luck because you hold precedent of a rat/monkey over a human being.

Perhaps you have a leaning disability. Reread my essay three or four more time, then try to summarize the main point, and then explain why you do or do not still believe that the many millions of dollars poured into Carroll's lab should be counted as public money well-spent.